Another comment I thought I'd share -- the very last one, #70 in this post:---It's a pro-gay watchdog site that found a PDF on an anti-gay site listing: "77 Non-Religious Reasons to Support Man/Woman Marriage"

The author then lists all the reasons, but instead of refuting them, out of sarcasm I began to add more:

Reasons # 78 and 79.From p22 of the book “Marriage On Trial” by Glenn Stanton and Bill Maier (two Focus on the Family hacks):#78: "Wives help men channel their sexual energy in socially acceptable and nonpredatory ways."#79: "Husbands help protect women from the exploitation of other males."

--
Because, as we all know, ALL women "put out" for their husbands as much as, and in every way he wants, all the time. And NO husbands are womanizers or adulterers who ever feel the need to hike the appalachian trail.

Then further down I said:

Reasons # 80 - 87From the same book quoted earlier, Marriage on Trial, pages 60 - 63#81: "Does the father pay for his daughter’s lesbian wedding?" #82: "Does the father walk her down the aisle?"#83: "Do you attend the wedding shower?"#84: "What about the baby showers that could follow?"#85: "What kind of discussion develops when some coworkers want to share in buying a wedding present for their colleague and some don’t?"#86: "Will in-laws really be able to celebrate the coming together of two families via the "marriage" of two guys or gals…"How insensitive of the wedding couple to not put the "ick"/"I hate gays" factor in front of their own! As the book says:"This will not bring us closer together but rather drive us further apart."And my all time favorite:#87: "It would alienate … "married" gays from gays who don’t want marriage…"Priceless.

To which an "anonymous" commenter countered:

Patrickyou have to be honest heregays have based their lives on breaking down a traditional taboowhy then are they so concerned with another tradition: marriage?oh, you can talk about all the financial benefits, but even as "civil unions" rose, they still kept pushing for the title of "marriage"but, really, few gays ever really wanted to be marriedits just a stepping stone to normalization so homosexuality will be advanced in public schools, through sex ed classes which portray this deviancy as just another part of a big beautiful rainbowyou know, the part where public exhibitionism, sado-masochism, random promiscuity and incurably fatal sexual diseases are the norm

To which I replied:

"Patrick … you have to be honest here … gays have based their lives on breaking down a traditional taboo"

More accurately, the social "tradition" of defining same-gender attraction as "taboo.""why then are they so concerned with another tradition: marriage?"You mean like the "tradition" of arranged marriages and underage marriages and racially homogeneous marriages? For as long as there have been committed gay relationships there has been gay marriage, it just hasn’t been socially recognized and respected as such.What you really mean is your personal et al., definition of marriage as being between a male and a female. The misnomer, "traditional marriage," is disingenuous enough, but what lies beyond that is the insidious implication that only male/female union is possible.Marriage = union = love, ergo, marriage is a euphemism for love, thus the need to put marriage in quotes. It’s a surreptitious way of saying that you consider the love between two people of the same gender to be inferior to your own to the point that comparing it to bestiality makes sense to you. Which answers your next point as to your perception that we’re simply pushing for a "title" as opposed to equal protection under the law."but, really, few gays ever really wanted to be married"There’s 18,000 gay couples who were married in CA in the few months it was legal who would beg to differ."its just a stepping stone to normalization so homosexuality will be advanced in public schools, through sex ed classes which portray this deviancy as just another part of a big beautiful rainbow … you know, the part where public exhibitionism, sado-masochism, random promiscuity and incurably fatal sexual diseases are the norm"Not just sex-ed classes or just in public schools, but everywhere, to help minimize the devastating effects of your obsessive, vindictive and malicious attempts to smear LGBT Americans -- of all ages -- as sexually promiscuous disease spreading perverts in order to convince us and the rest of society that we deserve all the rights and respect reserved for fecal matter.I understand and can accept that you don’t believe our love for each other is equal to your own. What I object to is the virtually ubiquitous cowardice shown by your incessant use of euphemisms to hide that fact, and your demonic LUST to malign our very humanity with scurrilous invectives in the name of "Christianity" and "morality," and yet you have the temerity to suggest that I’m the one who’s not being honest? Take off your human masks and show yourselves for the shame feasting monsters that you are.